Several years ago, the Police Chief proposed a new structure for the department. It went to Town Meeting for approval and a Special Act of the General Court was required to change the structure due to civil service law. Both bodies have passed the change. A graphic representation of the new structure can be found at this link. The proposed structure has a Chief and Deputy Chief who are not covered by civil service. The remaining command structure are a captain, three lieutenants, and 7 sargeants, all under the civil service. The town has been trying to move to this arrangement for some time. With the retirement of our two captains, Captains Brooks and McGuire, this is an opportune time to go to the new system.
One of the aims of the new arrangement is to reduce the amount of overtime paid in normal manning of the three shifts, or reliefs as they are called in the department. We have already realized some reductions. Some overtime is cannot be avoided. If an officer is in the midst of a call for an accident or investigation or must appear in court, that may require some overtime.
There is a search underway ...
... within the department and nationally to identify and recruit a Deputy Chief. None of the candidates is employed by the Bristol County Sheriff's Department.
Until the field is narrowed to a few candidates, we will not disclose their identities as it may prejudice their current employer.
I hope this post answers some questions and lay to rest some rumors that have been circulating in the comments.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Police department organization and rumors
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
58 comments:
Let's face it, the rumors come from Saul and Ray, who will go to any lengths to falsely attack Joe Michaud. Some people enter the political arena by sticking up for the people. Others enter by sucking up to those who already are in power. Guess which ones Saul and Ray are.
I have never attacked Joe Michaud or any town official. I have no real vested interest in town politics as chairman of the democratic party here in town.
My focus is based along state and national politics and policy.
None of my posts on this blog have ever mentioned town politics or town officials in a negative or positive light, other than to commend the recent news regarding the bus fees. So when we speak of rumors,let's make sure the facts are there to back up the allegations.
Here's an interesting point for all to ponder; Mr. Trimble only comes to the defense of those whose politics he happens to support. So of course you would expect him to defend Joe Michaud just like he did Diane Gilbert. So please all readers of this post please consider the source before you accept Mr. Trimble's "rumor clarification" as Gospel!
Here's another interesting point. There is such a thing as objective truth. Regardless of anyone's stand on issues, the truth is that the Town Meeting and legislature endorsed a new command structure for our police department. The process for selecting a new deputy chief is underway and no one from the Bristol County Sheriff's department is under consideration.
Yes Bill but if it were any of your other select board colleagues or town employees being questioned I wonder if you would come to their defense by dedicating a whole post to it? Hmmm, no I can't think of anyone that has not supported your political views that you have ever dedicated a whole post to clear up any rumors or misinformation about when they have been trashed by this blog.
no one from the Bristol County Sheriff's department is under consideration.
Any former employees of the Sheriff Bill? I am all for clearing up the issues, but it seems you left this crack open and you are a politician.
Here's a thought Ray. You can post anonymously on this blog and no one could possibly state emphatically that it was you although we all know that it is. Here's another. Why is it every time you post something in response to someone questioning your comments or disagreeing with you, there is always a nasty anonymous comment attacking the other poster or certain town officials following your post? Either you have a very loyal puppy dog (Saul) or it is you. That is called deductive reasoning Ray. You should try it sometime.
I don't know the employment history of all these candidates. None are now employed by the Sheriff.
all i can say is I have never attacked anybody,in fact I have been accused on this blog, of being repetitive on an arguement, meaning my principles do not change according to another person's opinion. To say I am posting anonymously is a shot in the dark and hopefully you hit the target. Anybody who knows me, will tell you that I have no problem speaking out for what I believe is true and good, and that includes posting my name next to my comment. Unfortunately you may need to take your own advice when attacking me.
I am not Ray or Saul and I don't care if you believe me or not as facts are facts. I have watched good people trashed on Mr. Trimble's blog while he has done absolutely nothing about it. I simply question his motivation for only defending certain people.
I could easily be attacking Joe Michaud under anonymous nobody really knows, I understand that,it's my word against yours the same way Joe Michaud or another elected offical could be attacking me under the same name(or lack thereof).(IE Anon Sept 15th 7:26pm)..we could go back and forth, but a smear campaign on Bill's blog by you against me progresses nothing,and creates hostility in a town that doesn't need it at all.
Too bad your efforts at a recall weren't better thought out. A complete waste of taxpayers' money on a retaliatory action borne out of sheer venegence simply because two individuals decided they wouldn't follow the democratic process of majority rules and decided to expel those they disagreed with.
Someone frequently posts that you can't make this stuff up.
I have to agree, the recall effort's timing was wrong, BUT I still stand by the principle of the provision. The principle is pure nad for the good of the voters,it gives more power to the voters of the town, which is what "We the People" are all about. I question any elected official's motives who would be opposed to it, it would be similar to the President being opposed to the impeachment process. The recall effort would be immune to corruption due to the fact that the accuser would have to have thousands of voters on his or her side in order to even start the process,also the accuser would have to prove that the accused is guilty. That's pretty hard without evidence if it was borne out of shear vengenence and a lie.
also in addition to my prior post, the arguement many have made that the composition of the board,SB,town meeting or any other board changes every year. Although that is true. The purpose of a recall is not to change a vote or the board's composition but to rid the board of a member that is deemed not worthy of that office under circumstances that would not have surfaced through the campaign, or has been unethical and not deserving of representing the town(IE...a DUI conviction)
Please! Everyone knows what your motive was for the recall Ray. You can try to dress it any way you want but it was obvious to everyone, including town meeting, that it was a nasty attempt stemming purely from spite.
"The purpose of a recall is not to change a vote or the board's composition but to rid the board of a member that is deemed not worthy of that office under circumstances that would not have surfaced through the campaign, or has been unethical and not deserving of representing the town(IE...a DUI conviction)"
Ray, can you honestly say that the behaviour and actions of some past and present SB members have been totally morally "ethical" and representative of the phrase, "transparency in government," not to mention "representing the town"? Has EVERYONE in our government ALWAYS acted "in the town's best interest," as Mrs. Dias is so fond of saying?
Sorry, read Bill's posts on the" never ending story" of those eight town employees who had that guaranteed job-and-financial-protection-for-life clause (b) and automatic contract renewal language incorporated in their contracts, thanks to the request of our municipal paralegal specialist who needed some sort of "protection" from the boogymen in town "out to get her," for whatever reason we don't know.
Ray, read the links that Bill provides (click on "contracts" on the lefthand side of his web page) and find out firsthand who in our town's employ and who as town officials were involved in that little scenario that, thankfully, was first brought to the public's attention by Ms. Diane Gilbert, and pursued to its conclusion (one which you don't like) by Mr. Trimble and Mr. Michaud.
See any familiar names?
It's all there in black and white, Ray. Public information. Available for reading at the town clerk's office, as well.
Was that contractual financial deal kosher, do you think? Was it morally ethical? Morally responsible?? Was there any TRANSPARENCY? Yeah, it may have been legal, but, again, morally ethical and responsible?? Transparent???
Weren't you outraged when you found out about the contracts?
Unfortunately, some of those names involved with those contracts are still with us in town government. And, also unfortunately, one individual who had the you-know-what to stand up to the politicos is out of town government.
Get off your soapbox, take off your blinders, and start looking at the reality of town politics here in Dartmouth. The recall and those behind and supporting it would have been happy to crucify Ms. Gilbert, Mr. Trimble, and Mr. Michaud for seeking to better the town with new blood and a fresh perspective, one outside the purview of the good ol' boys: yes, your "new direction."
READ THE LINKS, RAY.
Oh, yeah, post and let me know your thoughts after you've read them.
Speaking of our para-legal uh non-grant writing grant administrator uh whatever the title is. Did'nt we say at the spring town meeting that we'd give the position till this fall town meeting to get sorted out? I don't see any mention of that item on this fall's warrant. Perhaps my memory is wrong, Bill could you clarify what we are doing with this position?
She is to be given a new title under the newly created Grants Department.
Also, she will have a new job description.
The pure principle behind the recall is good for the town. That I hope we can agree upon. It places more power into the hands of the voters. If Joe or Bill decide that 1 term is enough for them and a new SB composition is in place I will still be in favor of a recall. I stand behind the principle and not the politics of the provision.
Did you read the links, Ray? What are your thoughts?
I'm in agreement for the necessity for a recall provision, but it most certainly must not be abused, as, had we had one in place at the time Michael Gagne's contract was not renewed, it clearly would have been, when two of the Select Board, riling up many Dartmouth residents along the way, determined to make three Board members pay, apparently, for their "mistake," undertook what resulted in a complete waste of taxpayer money, uncalled-for vituperative comments against one Board member in particular, and less-than-professional behavior on the part of another Board member whose comments were by far not "in the best interests of Dartmouth."
In the hands (and minds) of such individuals, a recall provision is not only a costly, but dangerous tool to have available when used with no discrimination, to further one's opinion and elicit a pound of flesh from others you do not agree with.
Anyway, Ray, let's chat all you want to on the recall. But, my questions still stand: DID YOU READ THE LINKS? WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE BEHAVIOR OF THOSE INVOLVED?
Will you answer my questions, please.
I have read the links,and to say I dont "like" Trimble or Michaud is a lie, plain a simple. I have no anymosity toward either of them. In fact I agree more often than not with Bill concerning alot of issues. I am glad you agree with me on the principle of a recall,because that is important to have that checks and balance in a government. The "never ending" contracts are in the past. My main objective now is to follow through with the provision at some point and hopefully it will be implemented into the charter in 2010.
I hope you are not calling me a liar, Ray. I never stated, nor did I infer that you did not "like" Bill or Joe. For one thing, you can "like" a person, but not "like" something that person did or said. I imagine that might be true of the people that instigated the recall petition and those who followed along, signing petitions and speaking up at the December 1st meeting centering on Michael Gagne's nonrenewal of his contract in support of his reinstatement as executive administrator.
There were, however, some questionable speakers at that meeting, if you can recall, who may in their heart of hearts really wanted to crucify the three, but one would like to think that everyone, including them, against Ms. Gilbert, Mr. Trimble, and Mr. Michaud did not "dislike" them as people, but, rather, disliked their particular decision which was to not renew Michael's contract. That's just human nature and unavoidable, really, liking someone but not always liking their actions or behavior.
Second, I think you are missing the point of my post regarding those contracts.
For one thing, the 'never-ending contracts" may be "a thing of the past,"as you say and I imagine you would all like us to subscribe to that conclusion, but I hope you aren't suggesting that we forget them, or, perhaps, the motivations and philosophy behind them.
So, answer my question: Were these contracts morally ethical and morally responsible? I did say that they were legal, which they were, at least standing alone without having to be crosschecked against MGL and Dartmouth's Charter, and I would imagine that would have been stated otherwise by the Boston (not local) attorney whom our municipal paralegal specialist had hired to formulate the language for the job-and-financial-protection-for-life clause (b) and the automatic contract renewal language she specifically asked for to be written into her contract, both which also found their way into seven other town employee contracts.
What I am asking is, what is your personal opinion of these contracts? Most of Dartmouth, I think, was outraged to find such provisions were included in contracts. I wonder if the other 16 (I think there was a total of 24 town contracts at that time) contracted town employees even knew that their peers had such special provisions in their contracts, apparently because their jobs entailed dealing with some nasty people, if you read the correspondence that went back and forth between the municipal paralegal specialist, the attorney, and our ex-executive administrator.
WHERE THESE CONTRACTS MORALLY ETHICAL?
WERE THEY MORALLY RESPONSIBLE?
WHERE WAS THE TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT WHEN THOSE CONTRACTS WERE SET UP FOR THESE EIGHT "ENTITLED" EMPLOYEES?
Transparency, Ray, is very, very important in government. Who knows what we residents SHOULD know, but don't, either because we weren't told, or we never thought to ask, the latter most likely because we were ignorant of the things we should have been told.
Ray, PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. We can talk all you want about recalls, charter commissions, and the like. But right now, I am asking you to stop skirting around the bush and answer my questions.
thankfully, was first brought to the public's attention by Ms. Diane Gilbert, and pursued to its conclusion (one which you don't like) by Mr. Trimble and Mr. Michaud....I misread your statement here perhaps,I apologize.
The way I understand, the contracts were to protect certain individuals from politically motivated repercussions. Nobody should be subjected to losing their job, because of the politics within the town, they should be subjected to reveiw of their performance within their job description. Now if the contracts specifically protected them against losing their job for not performing to the best of their ability,that I do not agree with. But if they just protected against political upheaval then I stand by those contracts. In fact all employee should be protected from politically motivated termination,whether it may be in government or private business. politics is everywhere,and we shouldn't be worried about the political enviroment changing in order to keep our jobs.
Sometimes that type of environment can be classified as harassment. A hostile working environment is not the basis for life-long contracts, however, otherwise we all would have them, wouldn't we? And, if that became the case, there would be an awful lot of people in all walks of life that were performing poorly or that truly did not belong in their job, but nothing could be done about it. And all in the name of "political protection," "protection from one's political enemies?"
Besides, I don't recall that job-and-financial-protection-for-life-clause (b) and the automatic contract renewal language referring to any job loss because of "POLITICAL REPERCUSSIONS." The clause was referencing the possibility of job loss due to the economy, NOT who in the political arena liked or hated you or was giving you a hard time.
As I see it, the protective clause and contract renewal language did nothing to protect anyone from "political enemies" that would make it difficult for any of the eight individuals who received this protection in their contracts to effectively fulfill their job responsibilities.
Sure, these individuals probably made some unpopular decisions within the scope of their job descriptions that perhaps someone didn't like, but were they working under such dangerous conditions that would have the big guys after them and their jobs?
So, how can you "stand by" these contracts on the basis of their protecting the municipal paralegal specialist and the seven other town employees from "political upheaval" when there is no mention of such "political upheaval" in clause (b) and contract renewal language?
If anyone is likely to have the public unhappy with him or her, it would be the chief of police, and HE doesn't have a lifetime contract. So what is the big difference between him and our municipal paralegal specialist? Is her job that much more dangerous? Is she putting her life on the line every day she goes to work (for that matter, are any of the other seven, or six, I should say, since Mr. Gagne is no longer with us)?
Political repercussion was never in the contracts, but that was the underlying cause for the verbatim used. When I speak of political repercussion is this, If a few select board members wanted to replace,for the sake of argument,Mr. Gagne with one of his/her political allies,due to campaign contributions and/or a favor for someone with "special"connections,this language was meant to protect them from this type of situation and is also a great reason, I believe for a recall. As a taxpayer here in Dartmouth, I do not want that type of action being done in my town. It gives us, as a town a black eye especially when the press gets a hold of it., but if we recalled this person,the voters of Dartmouth look like a "hero"
Well, what are we supposed to do: read between the lines? Either the contract language provided for "political repercussions" or it did not. You can't have it both ways and you can't try to interpret "your way" if the need arose to define the "intended" language of the contract renewal provision and clause (b).
REread the correspondence back and forth under "paralegal involvement" in Bill's posts. Or, again, go to Town Hall and ask the clerk to read it. It is all there in black-and-white.
The "action" you speak of goes on all the time. I doubt even good-old Dartmouth has been immune at one time or another.
And, let's not leave the impression with those reading these posts that the decision made by Ms. Gilbert, Mr. Trimble, and Mr. Michaud to not renew Michael Gagne's contract had anything to do with wanting to put any of their pals in his place. That is further from the truth, so let's not even go there.
All I am saying is I believe that was the intended purpose. I do not know the reason why everyone in managment wasn't given this clause and why it was just specified for a few and i will not make assumptions.
The actions that I speak of probably did happen in Dartmouth, but that doesn't give us the excuse to let it go by the way side. Which is why I support a recall clause in our charter to rid ourselves of self serving politicians that may be inclined to engage in that activity.
Nothing even remotely questionable or dubious should go by the wayside. And that's why we should ask questions, and keep asking until our questions are answered to our satisfaction.
It is one thing to not question if we do not know that there is a need to, such as the contracts that existed without public knowledge. Who would have thought to ask for personnel contracts to analyze them? But, if we had known, perhaps those protective provisions would have come to public light that much sooner.
Now, with the knowledge of what went on to assure our municipal paralegal specialist her job and financial protection for life, hopefully Dartmouth residents and Town Meeting members will be aware of what can happen behind the scenes, and will ask questions and if there is any doubt in their minds where our money goes, ask questions again and again, ask for explanations, and vote only when and if you are satisfied with the answers you receive.
Town Meeting members are charged with a task of immense public trust, and that is the spending of our taxpayers' money.
It is imperative that they follow any gut feeling they have about any salary or issue that just does not sound right to them before they vote. They owe it to all Dartmouth residents.
P. S. Apology accepted.
Bill said, I don't know the employment history of all these candidates. None are now employed by the Sheriff.
I am SURE that past employment is in each and every resume submitted. It shouldn't be hard to see if one of the remaining candidates is a "former" employee of the sheriff. By "former" I mean recently employeed. Come on Bill, I'd look myself but I don't have the applications.
Ray do you understand what else was included within those contracts? Those eight contracts not only had job protection clauses but salary protection as well. Each of those individual positions had to be fully funded before anything else in town. If that position was no longer needed, that individual had to be given another position with the same pay. You have skirted around the issue and seem to still believe these contracts were okay.
Now in case you still don't get it. The reason the contracts were drawn up to begin with was because the paralegal was afraid of losing the cushy position she was given by Bob Miller. You see Ray, she was his mistress much to the embarrassment of his wife. It was common knowledge in town. The paralegal, as she admits herself in the correspondence, was no longer needed so they had to come up with something else for her to do. At the same time they had to insure that when a new board came in, it wouldn't be able to undo what they had done. Therefore the contracts. You can try to defend the contracts claiming that employees should have protection from politics, but if you believe what I'm saying is true, wouldn't a new SB have every right to terminate this employee considering the fact that we didn't need a paralegal? Unfortunately because of the contract, the SB couldn't. Not to mention the ethics or lack of on the part of this employee. Also the duty of our leaders is to protect the citizens. Since just about EVERYONE agrees these contracts were not in the best interest of the taxpayers, it was unethical on the part of any of the board members who signed them. Those members are why a recall should exist.
Neither do I
Salary protection is wrong. During economic downturns everyone needs to give alittle in order to prevent layoffs. I would take a 10%pay temporary pay reduction if it meant my co workers would keep their jobs. I say temporary because when times are better and we have the funds to allocate, it is only fair to our employees to reinstate their salaries they had given up for the benefit of the town as a whole. Now I agree with you on the issue of salary protection from the information you have given me, but like I said in previous posts I believe the language to protect a position is fine if what it was instilled for was political protection in the case of the EA . I hope we can agree nobody should be let go in order to hand out "favors" to political friends.
Bill why do you allow such personal information on your blog? Do you not think these people have children that could be harmed by this information? I happen to know they do. Once again you should be ashamed and the person writing such hurtful information should be as well.
8:09am I agree 100%. Unfortunately, thats politics. People who write hurtful things about others should be required to at least sign their name. Posting anonymously should be for information, not attacking others.
That's funny. When it was proposed that everyone should be required to post under their real name, there was much opposition.
I notice that no one disputes the information I gave. That's because it is true. I'm sorry if the truth offends you.
Ray, this is the very reason among others, that job protection clauses should not be included in contracts. The whole paralegal issue was completely unethical but a new SB could not undo the damage because of the contract. If an employee is doing a good job, then he/she should not need job protection. If there is a downturn in the economy, then the town's hands should not be tied because of a contract. If the position was obtained because of backroom deals, then the town should be able to terminate the employee without a legal battle. Town employees work for the taxpayers. They receive good pay and benefits. You want to give them lifetime security. What's in it for the taxpayers??? Considering the new direction the town is taking regarding consolidation, service sharing etc., where would we be if we couldn't eliminate positions if needed? You talk about for the good of all. Well, what if for the good of the town, a position or positions needed to be eliminated? Contracts for life would make it impossible. So which is it? Do you agree it should be for the good of town employees or the good of the taxpayers?
Job protection clauses for the sake of protecting someone's job and nothing else is wrong. We as a town are required to have an EA,that's obvious and with that said the EA position is very susceptable to political positions more than any other town position, which is why I think they should have some sort of protection against the ruthlessness of politics on the other hand we shouldnt have our hands tied when it is in the case on salaries, in fact I would rather see a 10% cut in the supervisor position salaries and executive positions salaries than the regular working "Joe".
In the case of the EA, we need one,that job can not be eliminated. So the job protection the way it was written was if he/she is performing their duties to the specifications and direction of the SB there should not be a reason to terminate.
Ray, "Job protection clauses for the sake of protecting someone's job and nothing else is wrong." What the hell does that mean???
So you agree Mr. Gagne's contract should not have been renewed? He was not fired. He was given a specific directive (produce a five yr. plan) and he did not perform his duty. Under your own conditions, his contract should not have been renewed. He was in the job for 20+ yrs. Do you really believe he was in danger of losing his job for political reasons? At what point? In his first year, fifth year, maybe the tenth? His job was in danger because he was not performing his duties and he was not equipped to handle the economic downturn. Why is it Ed I. has been able to get so much more done doing two jobs than Mr. Gagne was able to do just doing his own. The EA's job is only susceptible if he is not doing it.
What year is this?
Has'nt Gagne moved on with his life? Should'nt you?
I have no interest in what Mr. Gagne is doing. I was making a point about lifetime contracts. Next time I'll just use Mr. X if that makes you feel better.
Could've fooled me.
isnt Old Glory still flying? Can't anyone apply for any position? Whop cares if someone from the sheriff's dept (current or not) has any interest ? Its a free country they can apply and will be held to the same rules that are for all. Again, instead of dancing around..name names..who is this employee? If the truth cant come out then its not truth. There so much "hush" talk noone steps up and says anything. Well if you know so dam much then say it. The only you're making look like a fool is yourself, speak up, spill it! what factual information (and I stress factual not theory). As like the old days..put up or shut up.
What it means is eliminating favoratism. We should not be implementing job protection just to keep a specific person on the job.
We should not have job protection clauses period.
I am against protecting a position that is not essential to our government. If you don't think politics can be a deciding factor in a highly influential position you are only fooling yourself,and when a person is in that position, politics should never enter the office or influence his/her positions on any subject and with language that states reasons for termination or nonrenewal in his contract he/she knows their job is safe from political influence.
That language in a contract allows them to do their job to the best of their ability, in the best interest of the town,without fear of losing their job if politics ever became a factor. Now in the case of Mr. Gagne's contract..instead of "just cause" I would have put specific language that defined the limits of non renewal or termination. Without this language he/she may be persuaded by politics rather than logic,and that is never good for the town as a whole
You're rambling.
Ray, you are in a select group. Others who believe we should have lifetime contracts are Nat Dias, Bob Carney, Kathleen MClean, Bob Miller & Doris Copley. As for the rest of us, we the unenlightened don't want them.
I wouldn't call the language I proposed job protection, it would be more along the lines of parameters set by the SB. If the SB specifies goals to be reached by the EA, and the EA doesn't accomplish them,that in itself is a reason for non renewal and/or termination. The EA should have protection from political influence,however we can accomplish that,we should do it.
Do you want to tell us all just how you would word that "protection from political influence" provision?
Are we talking the employee's influencing other people, or other people influencing the employee?
It's getting tough to read your posts and keeping up with what you are trying to say. It's all over the place. Are you reading the same protection provisions in those contracts that the rest of us are?
I have reiterated the same ideas over and over again, my posts are not all over the place. I have stated the language in previous posts. The language would be to isolate the EA position from people influencing town administration in a way that is detrimental to the town as a whole,but benefits special interests groups. By providing this language in a contract it would allow the EA to operate the town without political repercussions.(IE placing friends of politicians or others in lucrative town jobs). If the EA is influenced by politics it would make the town alot worse off. If we isolate the EA he/she would operate the town according to what HE/SHE feels is appropriate rather than what a special interest group believes in appropriate.
The language would be specific and give guidelines to what is deemed grounds for non renewal or termination,rather than just "just cause". "Just cause" was to vague I would have implemented specific language into the contract.
Ray, "just cause" in these contracts is under the heading "Termination" and refers to "reasons outlined in the Town Charter, Sec.6-9." That section refers to "Removals and Suspensions."
The protective clause and language guaranteeing automatic renewal of contracts is under the heading "Compensation" in the contracts.
They define two different areas of" job loss": the former refers to wrongdoing and incapacitation, among others; the latter references the fact that there is to be no job loss and defines the circumstances that might otherwise result in anyone else losing his or her job under normal situations dictated by the economy, and no loss in salary for these employees because that segment in the contracts guarantees that the employees cannot lose their jobs.
You may have the two confused?
Thank you for your clarifications. I did not refer to the contract itself in our debate and discussion, just what I believed should be in and out of the contracts. Thank you again
Ano 7:43 A.M.
The 1 million dollar policy is for catastrophic injuries. The one year policy is perpetual, it continues for as long as the police officer is injured. It's for the life of the person. The annual premium may change, but the coverage will never . Dartmouth gambled on this type of injury never occurring in Dartmouth. The cost to the town, would have been 80,000 dollars per year, not 750,000 dollars.
So the lawyers wouldn't cry fowl, the crash scene was turn over to the state police. They concluded that the second driver, failed to stop at the posted intersection. ( stop sign )
According to police department rumors, someone did something to the police detail book? Green book, “what's that secret your keeping”?? There's an old piano, playing some type of music, behind the green book Green book, “what's that secret your keeping”??
Post a Comment